DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohler (2008/0052911) in view of Wörner (DE 102 15 804) and Cherian (US 2012/0167392) and Hsien (US 2004/0040388).
Regarding claim 1, Wörner discloses a Personal care device such as hair cutter or tooth brush ([0001] “for cleaning teeth” therefore— per se a “personal care device; Note “such as” clause is not restrictive but is indicative of intended use and is not a structural limitation to the claimed device—which must be a personal care device, but need not be either a tooth brush nor a hair cutter).
Wörner discloses that it comprises a handle (16 figure 3; [0030 “handle 16…”) and a function head (“elastomeric head 22” [0031]; see figure 3 and 5) supporting at least one personal care tool (Cleaning pad 30/32 which is “for brushing teeth” [0042] which is per se ‘personal care’), said function head being attached to said handle (see figure 3), wherein at least one of said handle and said function head includes an outer metal shell formed in one piece with an integral, homogeneous, seamless structure having a ring-like or sleeve-like shape with closed annular cross-sections (See the figure 3 of Wörner, discussed at [0046-0047]: “handle 16 is preferably metal…steel or titanium…. [T]he handle 16 can be formed as a hollow part.”). As seen in figure 3, noting the above description of the handle being metal and hollow—it is identical in essence to the claim and the idea of the present application.
In light of the above disclosure shown by Wörner, Figure 3 included “said outer metal shell includes at least one undercut portion” at each of the taper or curve portions shown in figure 3, since as a hollow annular structure / thin walled structure as discussed by Wörner, the undulations provide clear ‘undercut’ sections on the interior of the handle.
Regarding claim 1, as amended, Wörner lacks at least one lateral opening bordered by the shell, and an electronic functional component extending into the shell ‘into the lateral opening.’
The use of lateral openings for the provision of electronic components on the outside of a handle is old and well known in the primary reference, Kohler, and in similar art cited for understanding the background knowledge of those of ordinary skill in the art.
For example, 26 figure 3 of Kohler (2008/0052911) is a “LED” or light emitting diode, which is per se an “electronic component” as claimed. It is shown in figure 3 projecting through a hole in a thin-walled, generally annular handle of a personal care device (razor). It is described as alternatively being a screen—and sitting in an opening: “[0008] In lieu of LED's, a liquid crystal display (LCD) can be utilized. In a preferred embodiment of the present invention, the LCD is positioned in the razor handle with the LCD screen being located in an opening defined by an outer surface of the handle. The LCD is configured to display numeric values, graphics or combinations thereof in response to commands issued from the controller.” It is noted specifically to project out: “In the illustrated embodiment an LED 26 projects outwardly from an upper surface 28 of the handle 22. While a single LED 26 has been shown in FIG. 1, the present invention is not limited”. The reason for having an LCD is display of relevant information: “Furthermore, the LCD can be made to blink or go blank if certain conditions are met, such as, the useful life of the razor cartridge has been exceeded, or the battery power is low.”
Kohler lacks only that the handle is metal, seamless, etc. Kohler is not concerned with how the handle is manufactured, which is why Wörner is cited—since Wörner uses the same type of handle manufacturing applicant believes renders the claims patentable.
Cherian at 32, inter alia, shows the same idea, an apparently flush screen set in the lateral surface of a handle of a personal care device.
In the art of personal care handles, it would have been obvious to modify Kohler by substituting a unitary, seamless, homogenous, integral metal shell handle as disclosed by Wörner for the handle shell of Kohler, since metal is known to be robust and durable, and is known to be a substitute handle in the personal care handle art, evidenced by its use in Wörner. Since both handle shells are known to be useful, it would have been obvious to substitute one handle contour and material for another, since they are both shown to be useful as personal care article handles. Additionally, it is noted that the opening in the side of the shell of Kohler would be retained in a unitary shell design, since it is needed to retain the function of the LED/LCD communication function in Kohler which interacts from the outside of the shell to the electronic bits inside to light about the information of the shaver to be displayed on the outside of the shaver, to the benefit of the user.
Regarding claim 17, the position of the LCD or LED of Kohler is shown as slightly projecting in figure 3, and is not ‘flush’ completely. This is a matter of alignment, or tolerance, and is not an inventive change in the art. The device shows a roughly flush LED in figure 3, but suggests in the alternative an LCD screen shown in subsequent figures, and not shown assembled. The implication being that the connection between the LCD and the handle is so routine as to not require any further explanation—those of ordinary skill can level the components of their devices so they are flush and therefore smooth to the touch. Modifying Kohler to have the LCD or LED screen be ‘flush’ with the handle is not inventive—it is an exercise in size selection, and tolerancing. All the options would be similarly obvious—both above flush (shown in figure 3) and flush and recessed are the change of about a millimeter – and none of which requires more or less skill to make that choice. Additionally, see Cherian, figure 1-4 which shows an apparently flush screen 32 placed in a side wall hole of a thin walled handle, the same idea as claimed. Additionally, it is common sense that making a part of a handle “flush” with other parts is obvious—since flush portions of a handle will feel consistent—and not provide an interruption to the gripping surface. See DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 80 USPQ2d 1641 (Fed. Cir. 2006), which states that “the suggestion test is not a rigid categorical rule. The motivation need not be found in the references sought to be combined, but may be found in any number of sources, including common knowledge, the prior art as a whole, or the nature of the problem itself. In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999 [50 USPQ2d 1614] (Fed. Cir. 1999). As we explained in Motorola, Inc. v. Interdigital Tech. Corp., 121 F.3d 1461, 1472 [43 USPQ2d 1481] (Fed. Cir. 1997), ‘there is no requirement that the prior art contain an express suggestion to combine known elements to achieve the claimed invention. Rather, the suggestion to combine may come from the prior art, as filtered through the knowledge of one skilled in the art.’ “ (emphasis added). Here, it is simply common knowledge that handle portions may be fitted so as to be flush with one another—as a matter of smoothness to the users hand. Additionally, see US 2004/0040388 which discusses the ordinary selection of flush screens in handles: “A display casing 30 is received in the handle 10 and includes an electronic display screen 31 and buttons 32, both of the display screen 31 and buttons 32 are exposed to an outer surface of the handle 10 and the display screen 31 is in flush with the outer surface of the handle 10.”
Regarding claim 4, the shell of Kohler has been modified to be that of Wörner. The opening of the shell of Kohler therefore is shown surrounding the whole of the electronic component—and meets claim 4 as the shell is metal, borders the LED or alternatively the LCD of Kohler. Alternatively, While Kohler suggests and shows the LCD being a big rectangle—Cherian depicts the use of an LCD screen in situ on a handle, with the thin wall thereof surrounding the whole screen at its full perimeter, and is evidence of how the LCD of Kohler would be expected to look in a lateral position of the handle, even modified by Wörner.
Claim 18 is obvious for the same reasons as claim 4, as the only difference is it’s dependence on claim 17 rather than 1.
Claims 19 and 5 are obvious for the same reasons—Kohler shows the connection of the outside functional element (LED or LCD) to the electronics inside in figure 3. The electronic functional element (LCD or LED) is controlled by internal electronic components, and is, in the words of the claim “ accessible from an outside of the . . . shell…connected to …inner functional component …inside said…shell” (See figure 3 of Kohler, inter alia).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 17-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the teachings applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The argument is not that the use of annular metal shells are not known—since the base reference previously relied upon Wörner clearly shows that teaching—the aspects of being annular, metal, seamless, etc. are not disputed by the applicant. The changes to the claim presented are simply that the opening formed in the handle is lateral and is for an electronic component—since previously the art applied showed an opening with a mechanical element at the lateral surface of a handle and the claim presented required the element to be functional rather than electronic.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN M MICHALSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-6752. The examiner can normally be reached Typically M-F 6a-3:30p East Coast Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571) 272-4502. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
SEAN M. MICHALSKI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3724
/SEAN M MICHALSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724